Engagement Style (Agent vs. Patient) in Childhood and Adolescence

Abstract

The active vs. reactive dimension of development was investigated as a personality variable called engagement style. The dimension refers to the perception one has of oneself either as doing (agent) or being done to (patient). The dimension is distinguished from similar constructs, such as locus of control and locus of causality. A semi-projective measure of engagement style was developed and was demonstrated to yield high reliability coefficients. In a number of studies in which the Test of Engagement Style was used, the following hypotheses were confirmed. Boys from large families had more extreme scores, i.e., more agent or more patient, than those from small families. Agency scores declined significantly with age from childhood to adolescence. Boys from entrepreneurial family settings had higher agency scores than those from bureaucratic settings, while girls whose mothers work outside the home were more agent than those whose mothers are not so employed. Just as the active-reactive dimension is currently a focal point in developmental theorizing, engagement style is an important analogous personal construct, which should be further explored.

Occupational Careers, Work, and Control

“…This basic suggestion from which all our further considerations stem (cf. Hoff, 1981Hoff, , 1982, for a more detailed description) was also stated independently by McKinney (1980 andespecially 1981). However, we arrived at quite different conclusions than McKinney: and environment is only conceivable in goal-directed, intentional action.…”

“…Second , as we have already stated, the important feature of the usual distinction between internal and external (or fatalistic) control concepts is the common deterministic quality of control and not its "locus. " In our opinion, these two aspects are relevant not only for the dichotomous concept of internal versus external (in the sense of Rotter , 1966) but for all similarly contrasting concepts, for example "origin" versus "pawn" (DeCharms , 1968) or "agent" versus "patient" (McKinney, 1980). The same deterministic idea-which can logically be applied to another concept-is common to all such contrasting pairs, regardless of other differences (to which we shall later return).…”